Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reign in Slumber


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

All Keep votes were either from sockpuppets or sockmasters so I think it's okay to discount them and close this as a Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Reign in Slumber

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is that one of its members was previously associated with a different band, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but seven of the 16 footnotes here (close to half) are the band's own self-published content about itself on their own website or Bandcamp, which is not notability-supporting sourcing as it isn't independent of them, and the other nine aren't coverage about this band, but either glancingly mention this band in the process of being about something else, or are completely tangential sourcing about people associated with this band doing other unrelated things that have nothing to do with this band, none of which helps to support this band's notability either. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Cambodia. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Reign in Slumber, is truly metal music band in Cambodia. this sub genre in it's very very rare find better sourced than this to support with their action. Without fund and most people came there just looking for free music during the music in Cambodia just built-up. Ten years they're struggle to survive, without them this sub genre will disappear in Cambodia. Please consider to accept my reason. Thanks JammyKH (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If having a wikipedia article helps them survive, that's PROMO and not helping us keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not exist as a public relations platform to help emerging bands build their careers — making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article comes second, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just improved some info and add more better sourced. Thanks JammyKH (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: Source 22 is the only one that's in what Source Tool identifies as a RS, but it's a very trivial mention. This is about the band, trivial coverage and I'm unsure if it's even a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: In cambodia, for a small subgenre music not getting any interest at all, Only POP, Hip-hop, Romantic and Khmer Traditional that's people acceptable. Metal in Cambodia is about to die. Reign in Slumber is real, they exist, they have the real music, real album and real performance. Camboculture27 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The notability test doesn't hinge on whether or not they're real, it hinges on whether or not they have received third-party attention in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: It appears satisfactory to me And it would be advantageous to retain this here. BPjohnathan (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC) — BPjohnathan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What proper reliable sourcing is making this "satisfactory"? Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: They deserve to be kept here for retention purposes. JammyKH (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's inclusion criteria do not hinge on what they "deserve", Wikipedia's inclusion criteria hinge on WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing, of which you still haven't shown any. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * CU note The three keep !votes above were all written by the same person using three different accounts. I've struck through two of them, and blocked all three accounts. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.